• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK General Election - 8th June 2017 |OT| - The Red Wedding

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TimmmV

Member
QuicheFontaine said:
See that really frigs me off >:-(

Which ones?
Click to expand...

What exactly is it that annoys you so much here?

The fact that the company providing the service is foreign?
The fact that it subsidises another countries public services?

or the fact that the rail industry has been privatised in the first place?

CyclopsRock said:
I'd argue especially rail. The longterm problems with the UK's railways (namely capacity) are basically unfixable due to decisions made about a hundred and fifty years ago. The reason I say it's unfixable is because, well, it's a network - it all works together, so replacing one bit with, say, a wider track gauge that supports heavier (ie double decker, as in much of Europe) trains would immediately make that bit incompatible with the rest. That's ok for small chunks like the Eurostar but when we're talking about domestic services, it's basically a no go. And that's to say nothing of how difficult doing that even on one line would be - it would need to be a parallel line (unless they're ok with shutting down an entire line for the ~5 years it would take to build), which is a whole HS2's worth of Nimby's complaining about a line going through their field/house/town/duck house/whatever. These lines then terminate in some busy city centre where 15 different lines all terminate because the Victorians went mad building train lines (which is the reason why the South of London is so utterly fucked, because it's such a criss cross of tracks that all you need is one duff signal and a whole bunch of lines get fucked, even ones that don't go through the stations where the signal failed!) and you're making it worse because you're building a second (remember, it's parallel) line that's even bigger, going into the same place. Then at the end of it, you "just" have the same as you did before only with bigger trains that won't run on any other line. And incidentally it's Network Rail, who are still nationalised, who are responsible for these things anyway. Private companies aren't responsible for infrastructure.

All these things are basically a problem for whoever's running it, whether they're nationalised or not. And almost all the problems we face - over crowding, signal failures, cancellations, faire increases - can be traced back in one way or another to an inelastic capacity.
Click to expand...

I work in the rail industry so am aware of how much a mess the UK network often is (although more from the IT and data side).

That's kind of separate to my point though. Labour could keep things the same as they are now but just reduce the price of travel, and that would be a significant improvement over what we have now
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
TimmmV said:
I work in the rail industry so am aware of how much a mess the UK network often is (although more from the IT and data side).

That's kind of separate to my point though. Labour could keep things the same as they are now but just reduce the price of travel, and that would be a significant improvement over what we have now
Click to expand...

Eh, I'm not convinced, for the same reason I don't mind people paying for university - I don't know if we should (further) subsidised train travel by using money taken from those that don't use it to so that those who do don't have to pay as much. And I say that as someone that spends £300 a month on a travel card to go 25 minutes each way a day. Is it fair for, say, my dad, who never takes the train, to subsidise my travel when he already pays a bum-fuck load of tax on petrol? Sure, not everyone has a choice and has to take the train - but then that self-same dad has no choice and has to drive. Where's his subsidy? Or busses or aeroplanes or bike lanes or or or. I don't like the fact it's so expensive, but I'm not sure other people paying some for me is the answer (and when you look at a break down - again, like university fees - those who take trains are typically more well off than those that rely on basically any other form of transport. Another subsidy for the middle classes.)
 
L

Lego Boss

Member
CyclopsRock said:
I'd argue especially rail. The longterm problems with the UK's railways (namely capacity) are basically unfixable due to decisions made about a hundred and fifty years ago. The reason I say it's unfixable is because, well, it's a network - it all works together, so replacing one bit with, say, a wider track gauge that supports heavier (ie double decker, as in much of Europe) trains would immediately make that bit incompatible with the rest. That's ok for small chunks like the Eurostar but when we're talking about domestic services, it's basically a no go. And that's to say nothing of how difficult doing that even on one line would be - it would need to be a parallel line (unless they're ok with shutting down an entire line for the ~5 years it would take to build), which is a whole HS2's worth of Nimby's complaining about a line going through their field/house/town/duck house/whatever. These lines then terminate in some busy city centre where 15 different lines all terminate because the Victorians went mad building train lines (which is the reason why the South of London is so utterly fucked, because it's such a criss cross of tracks that all you need is one duff signal and a whole bunch of lines get fucked, even ones that don't go through the stations where the signal failed!) and you're making it worse because you're building a second (remember, it's parallel) line that's even bigger, going into the same place. Then at the end of it, you "just" have the same as you did before only with bigger trains that won't run on any other line. And incidentally it's Network Rail, who are still nationalised, who are responsible for these things anyway. Private companies aren't responsible for infrastructure.

All these things are basically a problem for whoever's running it, whether they're nationalised or not. And almost all the problems we face - over crowding, signal failures, cancellations, faire increases - can be traced back in one way or another to an inelastic capacity.



Yeah, but as long as people with jobs need to pay their rent (or mortgage) it remains an issue.
Click to expand...

The Japanese managed to build the world's best railway system with far more challenges facing them (cramped conditions, planning frenzies, massve urban population) than the UK.

The rhetoric of changing it gradually is exactly that. it might take 30 years, but the longer it takes to get started the worse it will be. By starting now (MAGLEV YAH?) it might be possible to get a world class system in pace by 2050.

It feels a long way away, but the Japanese (and other European countries to a lesser extent) HAVE shown what can be done with strategic thinking, investmetn (yes and admittedly massive debt), but the offset in time gained in these areas (esepcially bullet) is considerable.

It can't be harder than building a new town in Cities Skyline can it
 
M

Moosichu

Member
CyclopsRock said:
Eh, I'm not convinced, for the same reason I don't mind people paying for university - I don't know if we should (further) subsidised train travel by using money taken from those that don't use it to so that those who do don't have to pay as much. And I say that as someone that spends £300 a month on a travel card to go 25 minutes each way a day. Is it fair for, say, my dad, who never takes the train, to subsidise my travel when he already pays a bum-fuck load of tax on petrol? Sure, not everyone has a choice and has to take the train - but then that self-same dad has no choice and has to drive. Where's his subsidy? Or busses or aeroplanes or bike lanes or or or. I don't like the fact it's so expensive, but I'm not sure other people paying some for me is the answer (and when you look at a break down - again, like university fees - those who take trains are typically more well off than those that rely on basically any other form of transport. Another subsidy for the middle classes.)
Click to expand...

Why do you think cheaper travel would require an increase in subsidies? The current system is incredibly inefficient as each franchise runs under separate management. There would be significant cost savings simply by centralising things surely?
 
Q

QuicheFontaine

Member
TimmmV said:
What exactly is it that annoys you so much here?

The fact that the company providing the service is foreign?
The fact that it subsidises another countries public services?
or the fact that the rail industry has been privatised in the first place?
Click to expand...

It's like the perfect storm to be honest. No, I don't like a fundamental public service being provided from overseas - we shouldn't be reliant on Germans or the Chinese. No, I don't like the fact that it subsidises another countries public services - people are always moaning about how our own public services are underfunded so how about we spend money on that instead.

I can't really speak to the privatisation thing really. I'm not old enough to remember much of what it was like pre-privatisation, but I've heard it was pretty shit then too. However, we did used to have those Intercity trains, what happened to them?

And while I'm at it what happened to that hovercraft you could take to Holland? We're going backwards I tell you...
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Labour up to a 30.6% average across BPC members. If Corbyn brings home more than 31.2%, politics will be fun.

Same averages for the others are Conservatives on 47.5% (+9.6), Lib Dems on 8.5% (+0.6), UKIP on 5.1% (-7.8), Greens on 2.8 (-1.1).
 
T

TimmmV

Member
CyclopsRock said:
Eh, I'm not convinced, for the same reason I don't mind people paying for university - I don't know if we should (further) subsidised train travel by using money taken from those that don't use it to so that those who do don't have to pay as much. And I say that as someone that spends £300 a month on a travel card to go 25 minutes each way a day. Is it fair for, say, my dad, who never takes the train, to subsidise my travel when he already pays a bum-fuck load of tax on petrol? Sure, not everyone has a choice and has to take the train - but then that self-same dad has no choice and has to drive. Where's his subsidy? Or busses or aeroplanes or bike lanes or or or. I don't like the fact it's so expensive, but I'm not sure other people paying some for me is the answer (and when you look at a break down - again, like university fees - those who take trains are typically more well off than those that rely on basically any other form of transport. Another subsidy for the middle classes.)
Click to expand...

You're basically going down the road to a persons ultimate position on the role of the welfare state there

Equally - I personally walk to work every day, so why should I pay tax money that goes on road building or subsidies for rail travel or all the things you said?

I'm fine with paying the tax for those things because I think those things being cheaper has effects which are better for society in general. Maybe rail travel being cheaper would mean more people in trains -> less people on the road -> less time your dad sits spent in traffic, or less pollution on roads

QuicheFontaine said:
It's like the perfect storm to be honest. No, I don't like a fundamental public service being provided from overseas - we shouldn't be reliant on Germans or the Chinese. No, I don't like the fact that it subsidises another countries public services - people are always moaning about how our own public services are underfunded so how about we spend money on that instead.

I can't really speak to the privatisation thing really. I'm not old enough to remember much of what it was like pre-privatisation, but I've heard it was pretty shit then too. However, we did used to have those Intercity trains, what happened to them?

And while I'm at it what happened to that hovercraft you could take to Holland? We're going backwards I tell you...
Click to expand...

I just find the notion that there is any meaningful difference there quite strange

Like, surely if you're happy with privatisation then logically you would be happy to go with the company that is able to provide the best service for the price? Regardless of whether that company happens to be a foreign public/private company, or a private British one?

The idea that its logical to go with a private company over a public one, but to then limit that to only British companies just doesn't make sense to me, its like the worst of both worlds
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Lego Boss said:
The Japanese managed to build the world's best railway system with far more challenges facing them (cramped conditions, planning frenzies, massve urban population) than the UK.
Click to expand...

But Japan had the, uhhhh, poor fortune of having all it's major cities either firebombed or nuked to pieces during the 2nd world war, meaning that almost all their infrastructure is barely older than 50 years and they could "start again" with regards to decisions, knowing far more about how railways would be used than we originally did when we were the first country in the world to industrialise a hundred years earlier. Furthermore a massive urban populations makes trains are far more useful and important thing. The UK has never had the same level of Urban sprawl, meaning that for much of the UK cars are still a decent mode of transport.
 
K

Kotetsu534

Member
Crab said:
Labour up to a 30.6% average across BPC members. If Corbyn brings home more than 31.2%, politics will be fun.

Same averages for the others are Conservatives on 47.5% (+9.6), Lib Dems on 8.5% (+0.6), UKIP on 5.1% (-7.8), Greens on 2.8 (-1.1).
Click to expand...

I wonder if Labour is essentially going up by default because of UKIP's implosion. Although it's often forgotten, UKIP's vote was drawn from both Labour and the Tories (especially in the north), so Corbyn is surely getting some of it. Corbyn outperforming Brown and Miliband? There's a thought.
 
T

TheMagician

Member
This is how biased the UK media has become.

image.jpg
 
Theonik

Theonik

Member
CyclopsRock said:
But Japan had the, uhhhh, poor fortune of having all it's major cities either firebombed or nuked to pieces during the 2nd world war, meaning that almost all their infrastructure is barely older than 50 years and they could "start again" with regards to decisions, knowing far more about how railways would be used than we originally did when we were the first country in the world to industrialise a hundred years earlier. Furthermore a massive urban populations makes trains are far more useful and important thing. The UK has never had the same level of Urban sprawl, meaning that for much of the UK cars are still a decent mode of transport.
Click to expand...
Britain's miscalculation with rail infrastructure is actually much newer than 150 years ago. It all goes back to Richard Beeching in the 60s which was appointed head of the British Rail by the then Conservative government. Beeching quite disliked trains and believed cars were the way forward leading to closing 1/3rd of Railway stations and more than half of the tracks that made up the British rain system. Especially for small rural communities the effects have been pretty terrible. Now you could argue that saving money in this way was necessary for preserving British Rail and bringing greater efficiency by reducing where resources were spent, but it's in big part why the network is over capacity now and also why everything goes down as much as it does.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Kotetsu534 said:
I wonder if Labour is essentially going up by default because of UKIP's implosion. Although it's often forgotten, UKIP's vote was drawn from both Labour and the Tories (especially in the north), so Corbyn is surely getting some of it. Corbyn outperforming Brown and Miliband? There's a thought.
Click to expand...

It doesn't look like at, at least from examining the cross-tabs. 2015 UKIP voters are now almost entirely blue. Looking at the cross-tabs, it looks to me like Labour is basically retaining almost all of their 2015 vote, has taken a little bit off the Greens, and has done 'swapsies' with the Liberal Democrats where they've both exchanged voters with one another at nearly equal rates.

The big question, I think, is what's going to happen to the undecideds, which are mostly Lab/Lib waverers. At this rate either Labour or the Lib Dems are going to over perform on Election Day, I think, and I'm not sure who.

Also, crazy reminder: Labour actually has a pretty healthy lead among the under 55s - 40.6% to 31.2% Lab to Con! They're losing because they trail the Conservatives 57% to 13% amongst the over 55s.
 
L

Lego Boss

Member
CyclopsRock said:
But Japan had the, uhhhh, poor fortune of having all it's major cities either firebombed or nuked to pieces during the 2nd world war, meaning that almost all their infrastructure is barely older than 50 years and they could "start again" with regards to decisions, knowing far more about how railways would be used than we originally did when we were the first country in the world to industrialise a hundred years earlier. Furthermore a massive urban populations makes trains are far more useful and important thing. The UK has never had the same level of Urban sprawl, meaning that for much of the UK cars are still a decent mode of transport.
Click to expand...

So what's Coventry's excuse?!
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Moosichu said:
Why do you think cheaper travel would require an increase in subsidies? The current system is incredibly inefficient as each franchise runs under separate management. There would be significant cost savings simply by centralising things surely?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Maybe. You have to offset that with a tendency of state run agencies to be less efficient, though. Yes, yes, I know the NHS is wonderful and efficient and everything, but I feel like that's something of an exception owing to nurses not being keen on watching people bleed to death because they fancy a fag. But you don't have to look far in the 70's to find examples of non-life-threatening services being removed or severely delayed simply because there was no alternative offered to the customers. BT were notoriously bad, often taking half a year to install a new telephone line. I mean, why not? If you didn't like the service you were getting, you had to stick with them anyway. Ok, this is getting into a much wider discussion I guess, but given that the DfT that gives out the train contracts goes out of its way to stop monopolies, maybe we should instead let single companies take over larger portions, thereby lowering the costs of management without making them lose their profit-seeking incentives. Free markets!

Kotetsu534 said:
Watch it closely. He appears to be looking at her when he reaches under her coat. My god.
Click to expand...

I dunno, maybe. I think he could have just been making sure he didn't smack her in the eye.

TimmmV said:
You're basically going down the road to a persons ultimate position on the role of the welfare state there

Equally - I personally walk to work every day, so why should I pay tax money that goes on road building or subsidies for rail travel or all the things you said?

I'm fine with paying the tax for those things because I think those things being cheaper has effects which are better for society in general. Maybe rail travel being cheaper would mean more people in trains -> less people on the road -> less time your dad sits spent in traffic, or less pollution on roads
Click to expand...

There aren't many things that have such a direct benefit and such a direct source of income than railways, though. You know exactly who is getting it and you can make just that specific person pay. It's use is often also a decision in a way that many other things aren't (which is why I don't think you should be paying for a heart bypass even though I do think you should pay for your train ticket). When one of our Typhoons drops a Paveway on an ISIS position (or school, whatever) in Iraq, it's hard to know whether you or me have benefited more by that. It's hard to directly establish the holistic benefit that some kid I'll never meet getting a better education is worth. But I can determine the benefit to me of taking a train, and it's rare there won't be an alternative available to me. Infrastructurally they clearly need to exist, so I'm happy for the government to take a heavy role in infrastructure and in stepping in if there's a failure, at cost to the taxpayer. But I find it hard to justify someone else having to spend money for me to get to work quicker.

And you raise another good point; The changes in the work force have meant that since privatisation, the number of passengers getting the train has more than doubled. Due to the aforementioned problems, increasing capacity further is very difficult. As such, would lowering the costs - and thereby increasing demand further - even be a good idea?

Theonik said:
Britain's miscalculation with rail infrastructure is actually much newer than 150 years ago. It all goes back to Richard Beeching in the 60s which was appointed head of the British Rail by the then Conservative government. Beeching quite disliked trains and believed cars were the way forward leading to closing 1/3rd of Railway stations and more than half of the tracks that made up the British rain system. Especially for small rural communities the effects have been pretty terrible. Now you could argue that saving money in this way was necessary for preserving British Rail and bringing greater efficiency by reducing where resources were spent, but it's in big part why the network is over capacity now and also why everything goes down as much as it does.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is really the answer though. As terrible as that might have been for the 12 farmers that lived in those towns, his actions didn't actually cause the problems we face now (nominally a large capacity shortage owing to our trains being small and bends in the track often forcing low speeds).
 
Theonik

Theonik

Member
CyclopsRock said:
I don't think this is really the answer though. As terrible as that might have been for the 12 farmers that lived in those towns, his actions didn't actually cause the problems we face now (nominally a large capacity shortage owing to our trains being small and bends in the track often forcing low speeds).
Click to expand...
Less routes means less capacity. Trains are pretty big already. You are talking 8+ cars in some trains.
Very few trains in Germany are actually double deckers. They aren't all that great in all honesty.
Have to be slower too.
 
A

Auctopus

Member
jelly said:
BBC reporter, oh dear. It's like slow motion, look what your doing man, use your eyes, nooooo.

https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/864473731497947140
Click to expand...

Ugh, this is beyond awkward. What was she going to say? Her thumbs goes up and it sounds like she's saying "fantastic" then doesn't react to the reporter moving her aside using her boob until the very end when she displays the briefest flash of annoyance before smiling and wandering off.

She comes across more Lynchian the more I watch it.
 
C

CCS

Banned
I'm reasonably on board with the manifesto for Labour, but Brexit and the ridiculousness of the Robin Hood tax make me happy to stick with the Lib Dems.
 
U

Uzzy

Member
Crab said:
Labour up to a 30.6% average across BPC members. If Corbyn brings home more than 31.2%, politics will be fun.

Same averages for the others are Conservatives on 47.5% (+9.6), Lib Dems on 8.5% (+0.6), UKIP on 5.1% (-7.8), Greens on 2.8 (-1.1).
Click to expand...

Why 31.2% in particular? Obviously getting more than Milibantz's 30.4% would give Corbyn some arguments post election, I can see that.
 
C

Camp Freddie

Member
I think the subsidisation of rail travel is a good thing due to the benefits it gives.

If you have high travel costs it reduces the range of possible job options. Given that people with families can't easily move house, it causes serious problems. Cheap public transport is good for creating jobs and ensuring that companies have access to a large talent pool.

The problem with the free market approach is that people going to work on popular routes subsidise the transport costs of everyone else.
It should cost more to use an off-peak train (approximately the same costs, but fewer passengers), but it's the peak trains that actually cost more. There is a lot of price gouging by rail companies based on the inelastic demand for rail travel to work. Though admittedly there are good reasons to offer low prices for off-peak travel (e.g. freeing up capacity).

Still, I'm not entirely convinced that a return to British Rail would solve our problems. It needs a lot of ambition to run an efficient railway and the public sector is not usually well-motivated and the politicians in charge will rarely want to make tough decisions.
 
Jezbollah

Jezbollah

Member
Evening all. Been away for a few days (and most of the carnage). Is it only Plaid Cymru and Labour who have released manifestos? (gonna update the OP).
 
T

TeddyBoy

Member
Crab said:
Also, crazy reminder: Labour actually has a pretty healthy lead among the under 55s - 40.6% to 31.2% Lab to Con! They're losing because they trail the Conservatives 57% to 13% amongst the over 55s.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't this be a massive red flag for the Conservatives relying on the over 55s so much?

Obviously won't affect this election nor the one after, but the one after that..
 
L

Linkstrikesback

Member
CyclopsRock said:
Eh, I'm not convinced, for the same reason I don't mind people paying for university - I don't know if we should (further) subsidised train travel by using money taken from those that don't use it to so that those who do don't have to pay as much. And I say that as someone that spends £300 a month on a travel card to go 25 minutes each way a day. Is it fair for, say, my dad, who never takes the train, to subsidise my travel when he already pays a bum-fuck load of tax on petrol? Sure, not everyone has a choice and has to take the train - but then that self-same dad has no choice and has to drive. Where's his subsidy? Or busses or aeroplanes or bike lanes or or or. I don't like the fact it's so expensive, but I'm not sure other people paying some for me is the answer (and when you look at a break down - again, like university fees - those who take trains are typically more well off than those that rely on basically any other form of transport. Another subsidy for the middle classes.)
Click to expand...

The problem with the train services is they're heavily subsided anyway. I'm not sure exactly the most recent numbers, but it was to the tune of £5billion a year.

As the petrol example, well, fossil fuels have heavy subsidies too.

I imagine there are very few if any public services that aren't subsidised by the UK government, whether you use them or not.
 
Theonik

Theonik

Member
TeddyBoy said:
Shouldn't this be a massive red flag for the Conservatives relying on the over 55s so much?

Obviously won't affect this election nor the one after, but the one after that..
Click to expand...
People tend to turn blue by the time they get their pensions. It is what keeps conservatives going despite this reality.
 
T

TimmmV

Member
CyclopsRock said:
There aren't many things that have such a direct benefit and such a direct source of income than railways, though. You know exactly who is getting it and you can make just that specific person pay. It's use is often also a decision in a way that many other things aren't (which is why I don't think you should be paying for a heart bypass even though I do think you should pay for your train ticket). When one of our Typhoons drops a Paveway on an ISIS position (or school, whatever) in Iraq, it's hard to know whether you or me have benefited more by that. It's hard to directly establish the holistic benefit that some kid I'll never meet getting a better education is worth. But I can determine the benefit to me of taking a train, and it's rare there won't be an alternative available to me. Infrastructurally they clearly need to exist, so I'm happy for the government to take a heavy role in infrastructure and in stepping in if there's a failure, at cost to the taxpayer. But I find it hard to justify someone else having to spend money for me to get to work quicker.

And you raise another good point; The changes in the work force have meant that since privatisation, the number of passengers getting the train has more than doubled. Due to the aforementioned problems, increasing capacity further is very difficult. As such, would lowering the costs - and thereby increasing demand further - even be a good idea?
Click to expand...

Well yeah, I'm not advocating free use of railways, there should still be some relationship between usage and the amount you pay.

I think this will descend into a circular argument now though, it looks like we both agree that rail infrastructure is important to a functioning country, but differ at the level with which the government should step in to make it affordable to people.

I did think of the capacity problem while making the original point, and tbh I have no idea either way; that would be a question for a rail engineer I think!

CyclopsRock said:
I'm not sure. Maybe. You have to offset that with a tendency of state run agencies to be less efficient, though. Yes, yes, I know the NHS is wonderful and efficient and everything, but I feel like that's something of an exception owing to nurses not being keen on watching people bleed to death because they fancy a fag. But you don't have to look far in the 70's to find examples of non-life-threatening services being removed or severely delayed simply because there was no alternative offered to the customers. BT were notoriously bad, often taking half a year to install a new telephone line. I mean, why not? If you didn't like the service you were getting, you had to stick with them anyway. Ok, this is getting into a much wider discussion I guess, but given that the DfT that gives out the train contracts goes out of its way to stop monopolies, maybe we should instead let single companies take over larger portions, thereby lowering the costs of management without making them lose their profit-seeking incentives. Free markets!
Click to expand...

Sorry, citation needed here though - is this actually true or a conventional wisdom that people just have. Anecdotally - my mate just moved into a new build flat somewhere outside London and just waited 4 months for BT to be able to register his (installed) fibre line for him to get internet. Waste occurs in any company, especially big ones.

Plus, wouldn't the success of East Coast line in between privatisation be a good counter point to this?

QuicheFontaine said:
Corbyn's just bitter because he's not very good at being married. Don't take it out on us!
Click to expand...

Do you think its fair to give married people a tax break and not long term couples who just haven't gotten married?

Idk, this seems a silly thing to need to incentivise too
 
Q

QuicheFontaine

Member
TimmmV said:
Do you think its fair to give married people a tax break and not long term couples who just haven't gotten married?

Idk, this seems a silly thing to need to incentivise too
Click to expand...

Yes! It's time to shit or get off the pot
Nah, just kidding, I'm not fussed about the married persons' allowance really, but it was a nice couple of hundred quid last year.
 
R

Royal_Phalanx

Member
Theonik said:
People tend to turn blue by the time they get their pensions. It is what keeps conservatives going despite this reality.
Click to expand...

Not this time, I should think. This generation has been doing very poorly and has seen little prosperity. There's no reason to turn blue anymore now that there's no more wealth to protect like a dragon guards its hoard. Baby boomers had it good, with house ownership a plenty, free education and good public services. We don't have any of this. The prospect that this generation will even have a house and pension is just nonexistent.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Uzzy said:
Why 31.2% in particular? Obviously getting more than Milibantz's 30.4% would give Corbyn some arguments post election, I can see that.
Click to expand...

30.4% was the whole of the UK. Polls exclude NI. Excluding NI, Miliband got 31.2% of the vote. Hence, it's when Corbyn's Labour's average moves above 31.2% that it looks like we're heading for interesting times.
 
K

King_Moc

Banned
Royal_Phalanx said:
Not this time, I should think. This generation has been doing very poorly and has seen little prosperity. There's no reason to turn blue anymore now that there's no more wealth to protect like a dragon guards its hoard. Baby boomers had it good, with house ownership a plenty, free education and good public services. We don't have any of this. The prospect that this generation will even have a house and pension is just nonexistent.
Click to expand...

I agree, I've always thought it was wealth and security that would do it rather than just age. Will be interesting to see anyway.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
It's not just baby boomers. The specific crossover point is about 39/40 for moving from more likely to be Labour to more likely to be Conservative. Gen X are also at fault.
 
D

Delusibeta

Banned
Crab said:
30.4% was the whole of the UK. Polls exclude NI. Excluding NI, Miliband got 31.2% of the vote. Hence, it's when Corbyn's Labour's average moves above 31.2% that it looks like we're heading for interesting times.
Click to expand...
Worth noting that the Conservatives do nominate candidates in Northern Ireland. Labour and the Lib Dems do not (although I understand that LD do have an electoral pact with the Alliance party).

Although, if previous elections are any indication, this probably won't change the vote share that much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
[TNYT] Brazil Blocks X After Musk Ignores Court Orders
Social News Community 2
69
3K
ManaByte replied
Fox News: Nazis, Anti-Semites, Holocaust Deniers "Slip Through" to GOP Ballot for Midterms
38
3K
Arkage replied
German Federal Elections 2017 |OT| Electing the new leader of the free world
46 47 48 49 50
2K
280K
Green Yoshi replied
AP: France’s Macron faces test in parliamentary elections
2
80
17K
Coffinhal replied
  • Locked
Trump on track to win re-election. (WaPo Opinion)
2 3 4 5 6
258
30K
ModBot replied
Top Bottom